The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202211593)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211593

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 August 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of a foul odour at the property.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. complaint handling.
    2. record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a tower block. The resident has dyslexia and appointed a councillor to assist with his complaint.
  2. The records show that in November 2021, the basement of the block flooded, which resulted in a bad odour throughout the block. The landlord carried out works to repair this. The leak in the basement reoccurred and the landlord carried out further work between 16 November 2021 and 4 February 2022, which included, pumping water from the basement, replacing ball valves, clearing a blockage, descaling, replacing pipes, cleaning the basement, and filling in a hole on a ceiling which allowed the smell into the communal area of the block. After completion of the repair the landlord wrote to all residents in the block and offered compensation of £333.70 for the loss of water and toilet for 6 days. This offer did not include compensation for the foul odour in the block.
  1. The resident states that he complained to the landlord of a foul odour entering the flat several times from September 2021, until the landlord agreed to visit the property on 30 November 2021. However, no one arrived on the day. He said that he left the property for 4 months, between October 2021 and February 2022, as he felt it was uninhabitable and affected his health. In January 2021, he contacted his councillor about the issue, and following on from a surveyor visit, the landlord carried out works in April and confirmed the smell was gone from the property.
  2. On 4 April 2022 and 7 April 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about its delay in responding to the report of a foul odour, and advised that he did not live in the flat for 4 months because of this.
  3. The landlord issued 2 stage 1 complaint responses in error. In its first response it advised that it held no record of the appointment. In its second stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised that the appointment was for the whole block and not specific to the resident’s flat. It said that it attended earlier, on 12 November 2021, as an emergency repair and closed the repair order. It said itinspected the resident’s flat on 31 March 2022 and surveyed it on 21 April 2021 and confirmed that there had been a faint odour because a gas meter was situated in a service duct. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied, stating that he received a text message confirming the appointment for 30 November 2021, and was unhappy that the landlord’s first record of the odour at the flat was on 31 March 2022. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted that it had an appointment for 30 November 2021, but cancelled it as it had attended the block on 12 November 2021. It advised that the odour was because of an issue affecting the whole block and not because of the location of a gas meter in the service duct. It apologised and offered compensation of £200 for its misdirection regarding the cause of the odour and its poor complaint handling.
  5. When the resident brought his complaint to this Service, he remained dissatisfied that the landlord had cancelled the appointment without informing him. He stated that this meant that he had to leave his flat for 4 months. It says that it affected him physically, mentally, and he lost time at work. As a resolution, the resident felt the landlord should re-imburse him 4 months’ rent as he had to move out of the property.
  6. After the resident brought the complaint to this service, the landlord carried out a further review of the complaint and offered further compensation of £100 for not acknowledging that there had been a repair request in its complaint investigation, and £15 for the missed appointment.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
  1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
  2. put things right, and;
  3. learn from outcomes.
  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a foul odour at the property.

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours and make safe or temporarily repair the issue until further works can be carried out. The landlord will offer the resident a non-emergency appointment for repair within 28 calendar days of it receiving a repair request.
  2. Based on the evidence, it is unclear when the resident first reported a foul smell in the property. The resident advised that he reported the foul smell several times from September 2021. The landlord does not have any record of these reports in its repair notes. However, on 12 November 2021, the landlord sent a text message to the resident confirming that an operative would attend on 30 November 2021. This does indicate that the resident had made contact to report the issue. On the same date, the landlord attended the block of flats for an emergency repair. All residents on the block were without water due to a leaking tank in the basement which caused a bad smell throughout the communal areas of the block. The landlord has said that it closed the resident’s appointment because it had attended to the source of the leak and foul odour.
  3. Although the landlord may have reasonably assumed that it had repaired the source of the odour, it should have communicated with the resident that it was closing the work order. This was unfair to the resident and represents a service failure. The landlord’s compensation policy allows £15 for a missed appointment which the landlord did not include in its formal complaint process compensation calculations.
  4. Based on the evidence available, this service accepts that the resident had reported the foul smell in his property at least as early as November 2021, and that the smell was ongoing for some time prior to this. This is because although the landlord did not hold any record of the repair requests, the resident provided a text message of a repair appointment, which the landlord was then able to confirm. This demonstrates poor record keeping by the landlord. Furthermore, the resident’s councillor advised this service that other tenants in the block had reported a foul smell in the communal area since August 2021. As such, the landlord’s delay in responding to the reports of a foul smell were unreasonable and unfair to the resident.
  5. The evidence shows that the leak reoccurred later in November 2021 and works to resolve this were completed in February 2022. Given this, it is reasonable to assume that the smell was likely present during this period.  On 16 January 2022, the resident emailed his councillor about the smell. This is the first contemporaneous record available to this service of the resident’s concerns. After further correspondence with the councillor, the resident was advised on 28 February 2022 that the councillor was awaiting a response from the landlord. On 31 March 2022, the landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s flat (seemingly in response to communication from the councillor) and inspected a service duct to check for damage to a stack pipe and foul smells. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take considering the concerns raised.
  6. The resident stated that the surveyor agreed that the smell made the property uninhabitable. However, in its August 2022 stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that there was a ‘faint smell’ noted on this day. The landlord has provided no record of the surveyor’s visit, or any other contemporaneous note of the outcome, and so it is unclear how it came to this conclusion. A record should have been made of the findings of the visit. The repair records do show that a job was raised to inspect the service duct to check for damage to stack pipe and foul smells, which indicates that an issue was found at the inspection.
  7. In the resident’s April 2022 complaints to the landlord, he stated he had not been able to live in the flat due to the smell. Based on the evidence, this is the first time that the resident made the landlord aware that he moved out of the property because he felt it was uninhabitable. There is no indication (either in the records or the resident’s own version of events) that the resident contacted the landlord after the missed appointment or advised that he needed alternative accommodation. The landlord therefore did not have an opportunity to address the issue, and as such, this service cannot find that the landlord is responsible for re-imbursement of the resident’s rent.
  8. The inspection and works raised by the surveyor were completed by 21 April 2022 and internal records from that day confirmed that the surveyor had found the smell had gone from inside the property. As a resolution to the complaint, the landlord offered compensation of £100 for the misdirection regarding the cause of the odour. It was appropriate for the landlord to make an offer of compensation, however, the landlord did not consider the missed appointment and the offer did not reflect the circumstances in which the resident was likely living.
  9. This service finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of a foul odour at the property. This is because, based on the evidence, it cancelled the November 2021 appointment without informing the resident, and works were ongoing to address the leak/smell in the building until February 2022. Further, the landlord was aware of the ongoing issue in the resident’s property at least as early as 28 February 2022, when contacted by the councillor, but it took a further two months for the repair to be completed and the smell to be eradicated.
  10. This service recognises that the landlord reviewed the complaint after it was brought to this service and made an improved offer of a further £115. However, this revised offer was not reasonable because it did not consider thelikely circumstances in which the resident was living. Also, remedies should be offered as part of the landlord’s formal complaint response and not as a response to a complaint made to the service.
  11. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance sets out that compensation amounts of £100 and above are suitable where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, but caused no permanent impact.  In line with this, the service orders the landlord to pay the resident £415, compromising £400 for its delay in responding to the resident’s repair request, and £15 for the missed appointment.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. At stage 1, the landlord will investigate and respond to the resident. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint can be escalated to a peer review. After a peer review, if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to the relevant Ombudsman.
  2. On 4 April 2022, the resident’s councillor raised a complaint on his behalf, about the landlord’s delay in dealing with a foul smell at the property. On 7 April 2022, the resident called the landlord and confirmed his complaint. He advised he had to move out of the property for 4 months and as a resolution to the complaint he wanted a refund of rent for that period. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2022. It advised that it checked the repair records, and its contact centre records, but there was no evidence of the issue being reported. This was a reasonable initial investigation and response to the resident’s complaint.
  3. On 25 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and disputed that it was not aware of the issues. He advised that he had complained through the landlords contact centre and he received a text that an operative would attend his property on 30 November 2021, but the landlord missed the appointment. The landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2. However, on 16 May 2021, it sent the resident a further stage 1 complaint response. This was unreasonable and the landlord did not follow its own complaint procedures. This delayed the resident in bringing the complaint through the landlord’s complaint’s process.
  4. On 16 May 2022, the resident’s councillor escalated the complaint. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 4 August 2022. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord should have responded to the complaint escalation within 20 working days. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £100 for its delay in escalating the complaint and its delay in providing a response. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation, however, the amount offered did not reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.
  5. This service finds there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to follow its own complaint policy by issuing 2 stage 1 complaint responses, and it failed to escalate the complaint within the required timeframes. This caused a delay for the resident in bringing the complaint through the landlord’s complaint process and a delay in escalating the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. This service orders the landlord to pay compensation of £200 to the resident for its poor complaint handling.
  6. This service recommends that the landlord train its staff to ensure complaints are identified and escalated through the correct stages and within the required timeframes.

Record Keeping

  1. The resident advised he reported issues of a foul odour in his flat several times since September 2021. In its complaint investigation, the landlord advised that it did not have any records of these repair requests. However, the resident provided a screenshot of a text message showing an appointment date on 30 November 2021. After receiving this evidence, the landlord accepted that it had booked an appointment for 30 November 2021. This demonstrates poor record keeping.
  2. This service was hampered in its investigation. We were unable to evidence when the landlord first received notification of the foul odour and determine if the landlord responded in line with their policies and obligations and treated the resident reasonably and fairly in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate.
  4. This service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping. This is because it did not keep accurate repair records, and it should have. This service orders that the landlord review its record keeping procedures in relation to recording repairs to determine why the repair in this case could not be located in the first instance, and what action has/will be taken to prevent a reoccurrence of this situation and provide this service with details of the outcome.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a foul odour at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord, within 28 days of the date of this determination, pay the resident compensation of £615 compromising;
    1. £400 for its delay in responding to a repair request.
    2. £15 for its missed appointment.
    3. £200 for its delay and poor complaint handling.
  2. If its previous offer of £315 has already been paid to the resident, it can be deducted from this total.
  3. The landlord is ordered to review its record keeping procedures in relation to recording repairs, to determine why the repair in this case could not be located in the first instance, and what action has/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of this situation and provide this service with details of the outcome.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord train its staff to ensure complaints are identified and escalated through the correct stages and within the required timeframes.